Partnership suit maintainable through disclosed partners, with accounts and good-faith transactions included in final decree.

A firm is not a separate legal person capable of becoming a partner in another firm, but a suit for dissolution and accounts remains maintainable where the real partners are disclosed under Order 30 Rule 2 CPC and the action is treated in substance as brought by them individually. It is desirable, though not essential, to identify the accounting party at the stage of the preliminary decree, because the court may direct accounts later; no interference was warranted on that ground. The decree was adjusted so that transactions entered into in good faith up to completion of the work would be included in the final accounting.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a firm, as such, can be a partner in another firm and maintain a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts; (ii) whether omission to decide at the outset which party is to be the accounting party vitiated the preliminary decree; (iii) whether the date fixed for dissolution required interference.

Issue (i): Whether a firm, as such, can be a partner in another firm and maintain a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

Analysis: A firm is not a legal entity or a person capable of becoming a partner in its own name. Where, however, the persons constituting the firm are disclosed under Order 30, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the suit proceeds in substance as a suit by the partners individually, and the mere use of the firm name does not defeat maintainability.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the suit was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether omission to decide at the outset which party is to be the accounting party vitiated the preliminary decree.

Analysis: It is desirable that the accounting party be identified when a preliminary decree is made, but the court retains power to give directions later to regularise the taking of accounts. Since the trial court had already taken up that question, no interference was warranted merely because it had not been decided in the first instance.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the date fixed for dissolution required interference.

Analysis: The parties accepted that transactions entered into in good faith for the partnership up to completion of the work should be brought into the final accounting. The decree was therefore required to be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion: The decree was modified by adding a direction that such transactions be taken into account.

Final Conclusion: The appeal substantially failed, with only a limited modification to the decree concerning the accounting of transactions made in good faith up to completion of the work.

Ratio Decidendi: A firm is not a legal person capable of being a partner in another firm, but a suit described in the firm name is maintainable where the actual partners are disclosed and the action proceeds as one by those partners under Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---